I don't know why the weird tax mechanic is put in, like what purpose it serves towards the gameplay in any way

Pro players have always recommended that players keep their income spent. =o)

The tax percentage scales up as you approach $8,000 of reserve cash. Thus, at $2k, you earn 75% of your normal income; $4k is 50%; $6k is 25%; $8k is 0% growth. This also means getting to higher stockpile amounts will take longer and longer as you earn less and less each resource cycle. An unattentive player will usually find themselves at around $4k, which is enough to queue 20 mercenaries (100 supply).

In games of unlimited resources, such as Dawn of War, I noticed there was always a point where players accumulate so many unspent resources that they become pointless. As STF features non-exhausting resources, I did not want runaway economies, which is where the tax system comes into play. You will always want and need a strong economy to fuel your war machine, as you can never exceed $8k.

The tax also favors underdogs. A dominating player won't need to spend much, or might not be able to if at the supply cap, thereby slowing or even halting their resource rate and preventing them from stockpiling an insurmountable surplus. Meanwhile, the underdog, who must feverishly replace his losses, will keep his normal income rate. This keeps the gap between players from exponentially growing, lending more unpredictability and excitement to the final outcome.

Sort of related, I don't really understand the escalating oil costs of units

It creates a dynamic price that poses economic choices to players and promotes unit diversity. As the price for certain units that might be favored in a match rise, players must decide if the new price is worth the investment or if they should instead buy a cheaper unit. This prevents one dominant unit type from being spammed. To cope with the price flucuations, Oil Pumps stay valuable.

I agree with AiurZ on the tax mechanics. In regular SC, players are rewarded for their superior macro with more units and upgrades, which is mainly an implicit reward for spending your money. In STF, throw tax into the picture, and now you have an explicit reward in addition to the previously mentioned things. I also feel that the mechanics are easily abused by things such as queuing 5 Engineers at the last second, then canceling 4 or even all of them if you're saving for a Hub or something of that nature.

I understand the logic in trying to put a ceiling on a non-exhaustible economy; I think the problem lies in implementing that kind of economy in the first place. While it shows a lot of technical prowess, I feel it has two negative effects on the game.

1) It devalues the map terrain.

What I mean by this is that the resources used in regular StarCraft were used to define key locations on the map for players to expand to and defend. Since Humans can't use these resource nodes, they have no incentive to expand anywhere, except perhaps on an island or some place that's easier to defend than their main. I think ease of defense is the only thing stopping players from just deciding to build in the middle of nowhere.

2) It removes certain economy-based tactics.

Here, I'm referring to tactics such as killing enemy workers to delay the player's economy, and running before the other player's army can reach you. In the case of Humans, this isn't really possible, as the workers are hiding inside Sweatshops and Oil Pumps, which are pretty sturdy. You need considerable firepower to actually pose a threat to these buildings, such as Lancers, at which point the defending player can match them with Rangers or Pyros and it becomes a regular battle rather than a hit-and-run.

Another possibility that is removed is the idea of containing a player and starving them out. Even if you contain them, neither of you is going to run out of money, because your income essentially comes from out of nowhere. I think this is part of why map control is less important, as AiurZ said in his posts.

I also feel that the mechanics are easily abused by things such as queuing 5 Engineers at the last second, then canceling 4 or even all of them if you're saving for a Hub or something of that nature.

5 Engineers would be $500, which would otherwise incure a 6% tax. At 6%, a $100 income would lose $6 per cycle. While a player could certainly queue up to save up, it does cost a measure of the almighty "attention" resource every 10 tick cycle. The gains of such babysitting appear to be acceptably minor. Instead of being viewed as an abuse, one might say it's economic micro. =oP

I understand the logic in trying to put a ceiling on a non-exhaustible economy; I think the problem lies in implementing that kind of economy in the first place.

I agree that an unending economy definately changes aspects of gameplay. One part of a limited economy that I never liked, though, were when both/all players run out.

Vespene Gas in Starcraft never runs out, though it does drop in output after a time. I've been considering a system for Shops/Pumps using the energy bar, which would award resources based on how much energy the building has. It would regenerate over time like normal energy, but each resource cycle would deduct energy, with more loaded Engineers causing a larger reduction.

1) It devalues the map terrain.

True, though there are still tactical and spatial considerations to be had. One thing I've recently learned is that it is possible to detect the type of terrain a unit/building is on. I am considering a system where certain terrain favors or hinders resource production, thereby giving map makers a way to create those key resource locations.

2) It removes certain economy-based tactics.

I have been considering weaking Shops, Pumps, and Claims to make them more susceptible to harassment, though there is a fine balance between that and giving players enough time to mount a rebuttal.

Another possibility that is removed is the idea of containing a player and starving them out.

Containment is still viable as it denies Humans necessary territory. Without it, their income rate and supply is stifled. Phreak made successful use of it against myself and Lavarinth in a few games, and I did the same against Bajadulce.

Starving someone out is a slow and boring tactic, in my opinion. With that off the table, an opponent knows they must push in to win.

In games of unlimited resources, such as Dawn of War, I noticed there was always a point where players accumulate so many unspent resources that they become pointless. As STF features non-exhausting resources, I did not want runaway economies, which is where the tax system comes into play. You will always want and need a strong economy to fuel your war machine, as you can never exceed $8k.

I haven't played the original Dawn of War, but I played a lot during the DoW2 beta and I think one thing about DoW2 was that even though your resources are unlimited, you hardly ever accumulate a lot of resources. I think this was due the pace of the game, the way their macro worked, and the fact that there was only 1 building that could produce troops barring requisition (or whatever the 3rd resource was called).

STF is different because there aren't capture points, so your economy can grow a lot larger than your economy could in DoW and there isn't the victory point mechanic. Also a really big different from STF to DoW is that in STF you have engineers that can build things, and you can have more than 1 building that produces units. For example, if you have 8k or something, you can unload an engineer or two, start building a bunch of starports or hubs, cancel them and go back into your sweatshop or whatever. You can also just throw down a couple more hubs or queue units like mucky said. So for one the system is very easily exploitable and avoided.

Also consider that in most games the tax mechanic will do absolutely nothing or very little. When I was trying out fast hub builds at one point I tried to go sweatshop+sentry and then save for a hub, which meant I had a lot of minerals stockpiled. This was when I first noticed the tax mechanic and I thought to myself, god this is going to be retarded because this stupid tax thing is going to rape my econ, and I was about to post something about it but then I did some math and I looked at the timings from my other builds and I realized that it did basically absolutely nothing. I suppose you might be able to argue that saving 200 minerals at that point between saving for a hub vs. saving for a sentry gun is 1 less cycle (you have a 32 econ, which scales down to 31 and it takes 7 cycles to save vs. having a 39 econ that takes 6 cycles to save) but then when you look at the timings

Basically my issue with it is that I can't really see it ever really making that much difference in a game and if it does I think I would see it more annoying than a cool gameplay mechanic. Still this is just my opinion without having played the game very extensively, and playing it only with 1 race available so who knows.

The tax also favors underdogs. A dominating player won't need to spend much, or might not be able to if at the supply cap, thereby slowing or even halting their resource rate and preventing them from stockpiling an insurmountable surplus. Meanwhile, the underdog, who must feverishly replace his losses, will keep his normal income rate. This keeps the gap between players from exponentially growing, lending more unpredictability and excitement to the final outcome.

IMO if a player ever gets to 200/200 and has 8k I think the lead is still insurmountable, even if the dude can't gain resources past 8k.

On top of that, I don't really feel good about a mechanic that penalizes a player for doing well. I think Mucky mentions this in his post too sort of when he talks about how a good player is rewarded by having good macro because he gets more units and upgrades and map control because of his good macro so that there needs not be an extra reward for having good macro; I don't think a game should be explicitly rewarding/penalizing players for good or bad play. It just feels cumbersome.

It creates a dynamic price that poses economic choices to players and promotes unit diversity. As the price for certain units that might be favored in a match rise, players must decide if the new price is worth the investment or if they should instead buy a cheaper unit. This prevents one dominant unit type from being spammed. To cope with the price flucuations, Oil Pumps stay valuable.

I like this explanation, but just consider my example to see why it won't work like that.Let's say I'm playing Human vs. Human, and I go Pyro tech and my opponent goes Assault tech. We both skirmish around until we get to the stage of the game where I have enough econ/army that I can safely get another hub. Since I already have pyro tech, my choices of facs are Assault and Espionage. Assault will invariably cost me at least twice as much oil as going espionage, and probably more, so therefore barring a huge lead I will be forced to go espionage. Basically, the game mechanic is limiting my choices and essentially making strategic decisions for me. On top of this, if I get a 2nd hub faster and I make a bunch of espionage units, my opponent who will probably have been trailing before since I am getting my 2nd hub before him, has even more of a gap to cover because I am inflating the cost of espionage units.

Another example would be since there is a lack of scouting in the early game and since you can get a fac so fast, there is a chance (1 out of 6 times if both players pick randomly) that they both go for the same fac. Of course the unit costs don't get updated right away, but once 1 or 2 cycles pass, the gas costs will inflate really fast and the dynamic that you talked about where people have to choose between an expensive unit that is better strategically or whatever and a less expensive one doesn't even exist because to have access to the cheap units you need a 2nd hub and a 2nd fac. So basically you force them to choose between spending a shitload of minerals to build a bunch of oil pumps, wait a long time to stockpile enough gas to make units, or wait a long time to stockpile enough minerals to get a 2nd hub/fac. It won't make the game dynamic or fun, it will make it tedious.

Also consider team games: the more players there are the more and more incentive there is NOT to pick human. Picking a diverse team should not be explicitly rewarded and picking an all human team should not be explicitly penalized; the gameplay should be doing this for itself. This doesn't always pan out (like ZZ in 2v2s) but IMO this sort of reward/penalty system is not fun or creating new dynamics to play off of, it just makes it frustrating.

I haven't played the original Dawn of War, but I played a lot during the DoW2 beta and I think one thing about DoW2 was that even though your resources are unlimited, you hardly ever accumulate a lot of resources. I think this was due the pace of the game, the way their macro worked, and the fact that there was only 1 building that could produce troops barring requisition (or whatever the 3rd resource was called).

I haven't played DoW2, so I cannot comment on how their system works now.

STF is different because there aren't capture points, so your economy can grow a lot larger than your economy could in DoW and there isn't the victory point mechanic. Also a really big different from STF to DoW is that in STF you have engineers that can build things, and you can have more than 1 building that produces units. For example, if you have 8k or something, you can unload an engineer or two, start building a bunch of starports or hubs, cancel them and go back into your sweatshop or whatever. You can also just throw down a couple more hubs or queue units like mucky said. So for one the system is very easily exploitable and avoided.

Keep in mind canceling buildings does not return the full amount back to the player, and if using unfinished buildings as banks they are vulnerable to attack. Exploitation may exist, but how practical is it in actual gameplay when resources don’t run out?

It would be very easy to disable the tax feature, as its values are contained in a TXT file, but given the work involved to make it possible, and the uniqueness it adds to the mod, I don’t want to give up on it just yet. Since this is a mod, I view a lot of these experimental ideas as just that, experiments, with the prevailing question being, “Can I make this work, and work well?” I invite you to really play them out in matches before rejecting the concepts with theorycrafting.

Personally, though, while you make many valid points, I find myself really liking the tax system. It keeps me mindful of my economy and encourages me to spend my money instead of hording it and turtling. The knowledge that my income won't deplete also encourages me to attack more aggressively, since a lost unit isn't as hard of a blow, beyond time, when resources are finite. I tend to be a casual player, so a lot of my designs are mindful of how a casual player feels. Being only a mod for an aged game, I don't realistically expect it to draw in a pro-gamer scene, so targeting casual play is ideal for this project.

Also consider that in most games the tax mechanic will do absolutely nothing or very little. When I was trying out fast hub builds at one point I tried to go sweatshop+sentry and then save for a hub, which meant I had a lot of minerals stockpiled. This was when I first noticed the tax mechanic and I thought to myself, god this is going to be retarded because this stupid tax thing is going to rape my econ, and I was about to post something about it but then I did some math and I looked at the timings from my other builds and I realized that it did basically absolutely nothing. I suppose you might be able to argue that saving 200 minerals at that point between saving for a hub vs. saving for a sentry gun is 1 less cycle (you have a 32 econ, which scales down to 31 and it takes 7 cycles to save vs. having a 39 econ that takes 6 cycles to save) but then when you look at the timings

Basically my issue with it is that I can't really see it ever really making that much difference in a game and if it does I think I would see it more annoying than a cool gameplay mechanic. Still this is just my opinion without having played the game very extensively, and playing it only with 1 race available so who knows.

Having minimal effect on the early game is intentional. Tax is a mid/late-game mechanic when people have established an economy that earns faster than they can spend.

On top of that, I don't really feel good about a mechanic that penalizes a player for doing well.

Well, actually, we don't know if they're doing well. All we know is that they aren't spending their resources. The most expensive thing for Humans is the Airfield at $1k. Saving for that will only incur a 12% tax. What you want to ask is: In what situations would a player not be spending their resources past $1k?

Let's say I'm playing Human vs. Human, and I go Pyro tech and my opponent goes Assault tech. We both skirmish around until we get to the stage of the game where I have enough econ/army that I can safely get another hub. Since I already have pyro tech, my choices of facs are Assault and Espionage. Assault will invariably cost me at least twice as much oil as going espionage, and probably more, so therefore barring a huge lead I will be forced to go espionage. Basically, the game mechanic is limiting my choices and essentially making strategic decisions for me. On top of this, if I get a 2nd hub faster and I make a bunch of espionage units, my opponent who will probably have been trailing before since I am getting my 2nd hub before him, has even more of a gap to cover because I am inflating the cost of espionage units.

Keep in mind the Influence cost goes down over time as well. Originally it dropped 50% on the next Influence update, though I've since changed it to something like 20%. I have the increase set a bit high and the drop rate slower to test how the system can really affect the gameplay. These numbers, naturally, are easily modified to have a subtler effect, so “twice as much oil” isn’t necessarily accurate.

Also consider team games: the more players there are the more and more incentive there is NOT to pick human. Picking a diverse team should not be explicitly rewarded and picking an all human team should not be explicitly penalized; the gameplay should be doing this for itself. This doesn't always pan out (like ZZ in 2v2s) but IMO this sort of reward/penalty system is not fun or creating new dynamics to play off of, it just makes it frustrating.

The price increase is actually decreased by the amount of contributing players. When the system was first set up, the price increased by 5 for each mercenary bought, minus one for each additional contributing player. So if two players both buy Ashers, then the price will only raise by 4 for each purchase. If three players all buy, the price raises by 3 each. At five or more players, it will only go up by 1 per purchase.

In the current release, I'm actually using different numbers, but you get the idea.

Another example would be since there is a lack of scouting in the early game and since you can get a fac so fast, there is a chance (1 out of 6 times if both players pick randomly) that they both go for the same fac.

DarkOmen made a similar statement about scouting, but I don’t see how different it is to use an Engineer to scout over an SCV, Drone, or Probe.

Of course the unit costs don't get updated right away, but once 1 or 2 cycles pass, the gas costs will inflate really fast and the dynamic that you talked about where people have to choose between an expensive unit that is better strategically or whatever and a less expensive one doesn't even exist because to have access to the cheap units you need a 2nd hub and a 2nd fac. So basically you force them to choose between spending a shitload of minerals to build a bunch of oil pumps, wait a long time to stockpile enough gas to make units, or wait a long time to stockpile enough minerals to get a 2nd hub/fac. It won't make the game dynamic or fun, it will make it tedious.

Firstly, the impact of the Influence cost is relative to the ability to earn Influence. The base Influence cost of mercenaries is intentionally fairly low, giving room for the prices to rise without overly straining players in the early game. Only in mid/late game are you likely to see high Influence costs, and by then you should have at least two Hubs if not three or more. Basically, cash is the limiting factor early game, while Influence is the limiter late game.

DarkOmen made a similar statement about scouting, but I don’t see how different it is to use an Engineer to scout over an SCV, Drone, or Probe.

It's way different.

In BW, neither Terran or Protoss produce combat units from the building they use to produce workers. Also in BW the cost of a peon is lower, and generally has a less effect on economy than engineers do for humans. etc. Also, producing a lot of engineers isn't the same as producing a lot of workers in BW because in BW workers don't need expensive buildings in order to increase the economy, and you can produce up to like 22-24 in your main without them becoming completely useless, and even if you do produce an extra amount past that, then you will simply have a much stronger economy once your expansion comes up etc.

On top of that, by the time an engineer gets to most bases I'm pretty sure most people will have already started their fac, and with some builds could have already finished it and maybe even get their first fac unit out. Since guards require a fac, you need to have a fac in order to make any sort of defense.

Also in STF early scouting doesn't produce much of a benefit to the scouting player. You can't really learn that much about their economy besides how many shops/pumps they have, and since the building only represents 1/5 of the buildings max capacity you won't be able to get that accurate of a read of the other players economy imo. You can learn their fac, but usually by now you have already chosen your fac so you can't really adapt that much in the early game except maybe choose a different upgrade choice or something, but this is nothing compared to BW where a lot of times your early game build is sometimes entirely dependent on what you scout from your opponent.

I was also thinking an immediate "stun;" that is, hitting it once with anything means it doesn't produce at all this cycle (or a certain damage minimum), but next cycle it's fine (I'm using "cycle" for the 10 or 20 second timer until you get your production). That, though, would change the rewarded tactic (rather than trying to do a certain amount of damage to everything, you're running around trying to spread your damage out as much as possible. Still, in a game that normally rewards focus-fire, and still does for long-term damage, it might make people switch up their micro. Focus-fire is also easier to micro than spread damage). This would also distinguish harassment from trying to do lasting damage; harassment takes ongoing pressure and tries to spread its attacks out, while damage focuses its pressure on one thing.

Combining the stun with a production penalty for not being at full health might be problematic, though, as it might make attacking shops and pumps too good (if one point of damage stops immediate production and halves it until repaired, then trying to do that one point of damage becomes too much); if a stun was used, I'd save longer-term penalties until health was yellow. A stun might be harder to code, too; a simple 50% production penalty until its repaired for a damaged building might be as effective in getting people to spread their attacks around.

Combining the stun with a production penalty for not being at full health might be problematic, though, as it might make attacking shops and pumps too good (if one point of damage stops immediate production and halves it until repaired, then trying to do that one point of damage becomes too much); if a stun was used, I'd save longer-term penalties until health was yellow. A stun might be harder to code, too; a simple 50% production penalty until its repaired for a damaged building might be as effective in getting people to spread their attacks around.

A one-cycle stun effect would be more complex, though not impossible.

I was also thinking an immediate "stun;" that is, hitting it once with anything means it doesn't produce at all this cycle (or a certain damage minimum), but next cycle it's fine (I'm using "cycle" for the 10 or 20 second timer until you get your production). That, though, would change the rewarded tactic (rather than trying to do a certain amount of damage to everything, you're running around trying to spread your damage out as much as possible. Still, in a game that normally rewards focus-fire, and still does for long-term damage, it might make people switch up their micro. Focus-fire is also easier to micro than spread damage). This would also distinguish harassment from trying to do lasting damage; harassment takes ongoing pressure and tries to spread its attacks out, while damage focuses its pressure on one thing.

At present, you earn 5 cash/influence for each shop/pump and each Engineer loaded inside. That means a fully-loaded resource node will produce 25 resources per cycle.

If damaged, what if production was lowered by 1? So the node and all workers inside would only produce 4 resources. That is a 20% loss, resulting in a maximum output of 20 resources per cycle until repaired.

If damaged to yellow, it would drop a further 2 resources. The node and workers inside would only produce 2 resources. That is a 60% loss, resulting in a maximum output of 10 resources per cycle until repaired.

If damaged to red, it would only produce 1 resource for a maximum of 5 resources. That is an 80% loss.

Last edited by Hercanic on Sun May 17, 2009 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aiurz wrote:IMO if you make the resource hubs lose production because of damage dealt to them you need to make repair not work on them because otherwise it will be basically meaningless.

Why's that? They can be rebuilt (or replaced elsewhere) just fine even if you do that, and the only difference between repairs and rebuilding is the rate at which you spend resources, not the total amount.

Yes, a good microer might be able to have engineers get out and repair them as needed so that they don't lose production, but that distracts from actually fighting. Yes, you'd need to keep pressure up in order to do anything at all meaningful with this harassment, but you kinda need to anyway.

That's why I suggested the stun, actually, since there's nothing you can do about it but wait.

IMO if you make the resource hubs lose production because of damage dealt to them you need to make repair not work on them because otherwise it will be basically meaningless.

With the numbers I laid out, damaging a fully-loaded node is equivalent to killing one of the Engineers inside, since they lose 5 resources per cycle. Bringing it down to yellow is equivalent to killing three workers, due to the loss of 15 resources.

However, you may get your wish depending on how my morphing tests turn out. In the original STF, I had to set the Lv2 and 3 Sentryguns as Zerg in order for them to respond to the morphing command. FireGraft has an EXE edit to allow repair to work on any race's building, but it doesn't seem to work. So, the Pumps, Shops, Garrisons, and Sentryguns that result from the Territory Claim morph may not be repairable (and to compensate will gain regeneration).

Dear IGTN:

That's why I suggested the stun, actually, since there's nothing you can do about it but wait.

While that would certainly make it effective for the harasser, not having a means of countering it with some effort on part of the player, beyond predictive defense, leads to one-sided gameplay (remember, nodes cannot run like workers can). Also consider STF's expanding territory mechanism is a lot harder to defend and far more exposed than the clusters of workers in normal SC.

Last edited by Hercanic on Wed May 20, 2009 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

-If you play on a ramped map you are going to be able to hold your ramp most of the time anyway, so you dont really need to wall off.

-If you play on a non-ramped map and want to wall-off you can't because they only cover 1x1 and they cost a lot. On top of that, the sizes of the buildings is not at all conducive to being able to sim-city a block because A. I couldn't find a side of a sweatshop that can block and B. I couldn't find a side of a sentry gun that can block which means that blocking with buildings other than barricades is really really hard to do if not impossible, and spending 500 minerals on barricades in the early game when you would need them would put you so far behind that you'll lose anyway.

Even if barricades don't make it into the next version, I think an interesting idea to consider is modifying building sizes so that they are better able to create blocks. Someone measured them all and found all the gap sizes of the existing units and buildings or whatever and it's posted here: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/List_of_Unit_and_Building_Sizes

Some technical difficulties were found with building mutation. If I enable any building to be able to mutate to another through FireGraft's EXE edit, Drone construction bugs out. That means in order to keep Drone construction, I can only use the five buildings that could originally mutate (Lair, Hive, Sunken, Spore, and Greater Spire). The Metaphyte will require four of those, leaving only one left. So, I've instead increased the placement size of the Territory Claim and bumped its suppy up to 10, from 5. Facilities now also give 10 supply, from 5.

Prices have been dropped on a lot of buildings. $300 per Facility, down from $500. $600 for a Hub, from $750. Sweatshop and Territory Claim are now $100, from $200. Oil Pump is $200, from $300.

The effect is a smoother startup and faster expansion, with more room for units.